1.Title, director and release year?
"Darwin's Nightmare," Hubert Sauper, 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
“Fish City” is a nickname for a small city named Mwanza on the coast of Lake Victoria in Tanzania. Lake Victoria lies at the intersection of Tanzania, Ouganda and Kenya. Although the lake provides plentiful fish harvests, poverty runs rampant through the city of Mwanza and the locals receive little benefit from the fish trade. Homelessness, crime, poverty, and drug use run rampant through the city while certain foreigners profit handsomely by running fish factories and 2 million white Europeans get to enjoy the fish fillets each day.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Overfishing: The owner of one of the factories claims that the local people are “totally dependent on fish.” Small local family fisherman used to fish the lake, and a small few still do, however fishing is largely a commercial process now. Many fishermen now have to work in the factories instead of running their own fishing boats. Furthermore, although I don’t remember any facts from the movie about fish production capacity of the lake, I would imagine that the factories are harvesting more Perch than is sustainable.
Invasive species: Originally the lake was a beacon of biodiversity, hosting over 210 species of African cichlids, however, the Nile Perch was introduced around 1960 at which point the species’ voracious appetite left little else in the ecosystem. Many cichlid species could not compete with the predatory habits of the Perch and were driven out of the lake. The Nile Perch should never have been introduced to Lake Victoria. There is an argument to be made that the Perch bears more meat for human consumption than the other fish in the lake, but the fact is that biodiversity in and of itself is important and worth saving. Furthermore, the fish doesn’t even stay local, obviously a paradox. Without the biodiversity that lake used to have, the oxygen levels are falling in the lake, killing off some of the Perch even.
Issues with Exportation: The fish industry exports 55 tons of fish filets per day. Ukrainian pilots fly back and forth from Europe to pick up enormous shipments of fish filets to sell on the European market. The worst, most depressing part of this pillaging exchange is the fact that no aid is brought to Tanzania by the airplanes that come to get fish; they come completely empty. Yet, millions of aid dollars flow into Africa a year when time and money could be saved by sending aid in this process.
Poverty: A quote from the movie cited $17 million as enough to relieve much of the hunger in Tanzania. If the Tanzanians were re-empowered to harvest their own fish and eat it themselves, they could certainly care for themselves better and begin to pull themselves out of poverty. The economic opportunities around Mwanza are pathetic and dangerous. The guard who sits outside the research lab, with a bow and arrow for protection, gets paid $1 a night. The guy who worked before him was murdered on the job. Prostitution is one of the common jobs. A girl who is followed a lot by the camera man, gets $10 a night to sleep with the Ukrainian pilots. She was killed later in the movie by a pilot.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Jobs for locals that did not regularly have jobs: There is some basis to there being some economic opportunity for locals. The fish factories The Ukrainian Pilots also come at the situation from an interesting perspective. They seem as though they are in better standing, but they are not. The will of the security guard Raphael to work for simply one dollar per night at a job where his predecessor was murdered, was truly compelling. He uses only a bow with poison arrows to defend the research laboratory.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not convinced by this mysterious “research laboratory.” The director couldn’t seem to get inside the property or find too much information on the site and I was left wondering what its true purpose was.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
-What the market is for this kind of fish in Europe are and who eats the fish. I wanted to know more about how the EU and local European governments view this situation: just as a way to get the best fish fillets at the cheapest costs or do they know the horrors of the industry and just turn a blind eye?
In actually digging deeper, I found some interesting excerpts from scholarly professionals about the film. For example: “Even if we figure on European portions, that is a lot of full tummies someplace…but not in Africa. Huge numbers of people are starving right near the lake that supplies so much food to the rest of the world. That is a simple fact. “
Les Kaufman
Professor of Biology
Boston University Marine Program
“Our host at the World Bank took me aside after the panel and the shouting had died down, and informed me that it was perhaps hard for me to understand, that it was very complicated, that the local governments were so corrupt, that the money just disappears. Yes, I said, the local governments are bribed, but who is it that bribes them? And where does the money come from to bribe them? And why is it spent? And is he who offers the bribe less to blame than he who takes it? The reason for the bribe is quite simple—to facilitate the flow of fish out of the country (you could substitute whatever resource you wish here: diamonds from Sierra Leone, bananas from Guatemala). It seems, I said to our host, actually quite simple—since the World Bank controls the purse strings, it would be every easy to direct where the money goes. If, say, the World Bank dictated that 50% of the fish had to remain in Tanzania at a price the locals could afford, that would be fairly simple to monitor. If food security for Africa were a priority, that is.” Nick Flynn, who was present at the World Bank screening, quoted the above quote.
Further research led me to discover that a similar exportation resource curse is happening in Kenya with the cut-flower industry. Kenya’s leading export is cut-flowers. This industry is economically empowering, but similar environmental and social tangents exist with Tanzania.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I would say most definitely it addresses issues that are not often discussed. I don’t think that many, if any, Americans know much about this situation in Tanzania. Then again, this issue of exploitation is mirrored all over the world. Many, many developing countries are victim to the “resource curse” that allows capitalism and the developing nations to pillage the country.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Unfortunately, Darwin’s Nightmare did not suggest many points of intervention or give viewers too many ways to help. The film mostly serves to raise alarm bells as to the problem, giving the viewer emotional empowerment to attack the problem, however instilling very few direct methodologies in moving forward.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The number one thing that could have gone into this film would have been real ideas on solving the problem. There are many different styles of documentary and although this one was well done, it doesn’t have that “go fix it” part to it. It does a great job of viscerally demonstrating the issue at hand, however it does little to actively solve the problem.
"Darwin's Nightmare," Hubert Sauper, 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
“Fish City” is a nickname for a small city named Mwanza on the coast of Lake Victoria in Tanzania. Lake Victoria lies at the intersection of Tanzania, Ouganda and Kenya. Although the lake provides plentiful fish harvests, poverty runs rampant through the city of Mwanza and the locals receive little benefit from the fish trade. Homelessness, crime, poverty, and drug use run rampant through the city while certain foreigners profit handsomely by running fish factories and 2 million white Europeans get to enjoy the fish fillets each day.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Jobs for locals that did not regularly have jobs: There is some basis to there being some economic opportunity for locals. The fish factories The Ukrainian Pilots also come at the situation from an interesting perspective. They seem as though they are in better standing, but they are not. The will of the security guard Raphael to work for simply one dollar per night at a job where his predecessor was murdered, was truly compelling. He uses only a bow with poison arrows to defend the research laboratory.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not convinced by this mysterious “research laboratory.” The director couldn’t seem to get inside the property or find too much information on the site and I was left wondering what its true purpose was.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
-What the market is for this kind of fish in Europe are and who eats the fish. I wanted to know more about how the EU and local European governments view this situation: just as a way to get the best fish fillets at the cheapest costs or do they know the horrors of the industry and just turn a blind eye?
In actually digging deeper, I found some interesting excerpts from scholarly professionals about the film. For example: “Even if we figure on European portions, that is a lot of full tummies someplace…but not in Africa. Huge numbers of people are starving right near the lake that supplies so much food to the rest of the world. That is a simple fact. “
Les Kaufman
Professor of Biology
Boston University Marine Program
“Our host at the World Bank took me aside after the panel and the shouting had died down, and informed me that it was perhaps hard for me to understand, that it was very complicated, that the local governments were so corrupt, that the money just disappears. Yes, I said, the local governments are bribed, but who is it that bribes them? And where does the money come from to bribe them? And why is it spent? And is he who offers the bribe less to blame than he who takes it? The reason for the bribe is quite simple—to facilitate the flow of fish out of the country (you could substitute whatever resource you wish here: diamonds from Sierra Leone, bananas from Guatemala). It seems, I said to our host, actually quite simple—since the World Bank controls the purse strings, it would be every easy to direct where the money goes. If, say, the World Bank dictated that 50% of the fish had to remain in Tanzania at a price the locals could afford, that would be fairly simple to monitor. If food security for Africa were a priority, that is.” Nick Flynn, who was present at the World Bank screening, quoted the above quote.
Further research led me to discover that a similar exportation resource curse is happening in Kenya with the cut-flower industry. Kenya’s leading export is cut-flowers. This industry is economically empowering, but similar environmental and social tangents exist with Tanzania.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I would say most definitely it addresses issues that are not often discussed. I don’t think that many, if any, Americans know much about this situation in Tanzania. Then again, this issue of exploitation is mirrored all over the world. Many, many developing countries are victim to the “resource curse” that allows capitalism and the developing nations to pillage the country.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Unfortunately, Darwin’s Nightmare did not suggest many points of intervention or give viewers too many ways to help. The film mostly serves to raise alarm bells as to the problem, giving the viewer emotional empowerment to attack the problem, however instilling very few direct methodologies in moving forward.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The number one thing that could have gone into this film would have been real ideas on solving the problem. There are many different styles of documentary and although this one was well done, it doesn’t have that “go fix it” part to it. It does a great job of viscerally demonstrating the issue at hand, however it does little to actively solve the problem.
Citations:
http://reut-institute.org/en/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=3357
http://www.darwinsnightmare.com/reviews.htm#nickvo
http://www.darwinsnightmare.com/